|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 11:05 am Post subject: Re: CBA Proposal: How to Encourage Players to Stay on Home Teams |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: |
Pros for both owners/players:
1. players: get paid fair market value which doesn't hamper building a team around them from a salary cap standpoint.
2. owners: continuity of long-term player, can still build a team around their long-time star while offering fair value. Hampers team-shopping by guys like Lebron and promotes building a culture/core in one location. |
I doubt the players union would go for that. No matter how the pie is divided, the owners pay the exact same amount in salaries -- 52% or whatever it is of total revenues.
So basically, your proposal would shift more money from the lesser players to the stars. And since there are more lesser players than stars in the union, the union likes maximum caps on the stars. |
You're right, the # of players that will be eligible for the 10, 15 (plus) salary cap discount won't be that many it seems. |
Yeah, basically you'd be asking 97% of the players to sacrifice money so Kobe, Duncan, and a few others stars could make more.
If you were, say, Matt Barnes, would you vote to take $100,000 out of your own pocket so Kobe and Duncan could make more? |
Still, appears that rank/file don't hold the sway that the top earners do in CBA negotiations. Maybe that'll change, but we're talking about reducing say a $20m cap hit to $10m, so that's $10m to spend on players (admittedly in the same BRI-based pie). The BRI argument won't change, but the issue I'm trying to address I think has a good chance in the next CBA.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 11:29 am Post subject: Re: CBA Proposal: How to Encourage Players to Stay on Home Teams |
|
|
| yinoma2001 wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: |
Pros for both owners/players:
1. players: get paid fair market value which doesn't hamper building a team around them from a salary cap standpoint.
2. owners: continuity of long-term player, can still build a team around their long-time star while offering fair value. Hampers team-shopping by guys like Lebron and promotes building a culture/core in one location. |
I doubt the players union would go for that. No matter how the pie is divided, the owners pay the exact same amount in salaries -- 52% or whatever it is of total revenues.
So basically, your proposal would shift more money from the lesser players to the stars. And since there are more lesser players than stars in the union, the union likes maximum caps on the stars. |
You're right, the # of players that will be eligible for the 10, 15 (plus) salary cap discount won't be that many it seems. |
Yeah, basically you'd be asking 97% of the players to sacrifice money so Kobe, Duncan, and a few others stars could make more.
If you were, say, Matt Barnes, would you vote to take $100,000 out of your own pocket so Kobe and Duncan could make more? |
Still, appears that rank/file don't hold the sway that the top earners do in CBA negotiations. Maybe that'll change, but we're talking about reducing say a $20m cap hit to $10m, so that's $10m to spend on players (admittedly in the same BRI-based pie). The BRI argument won't change, but the issue I'm trying to address I think has a good chance in the next CBA. |
I don't think this idea would even be introduced at the CBA discussions. It would affect very few teams, and most teams would calculate they probably wouldn't benefit from it during the CBA's lifespan so they wouldn't be for it.
I mean how many teams/players do you think are really concerned that Dirk, Wade, and Tim won't be paid enough and that Kobe's salary limits the Lakers flexibility? Cause that's what you're really talking about -- it's an idea that benefits 4 or 5 teams and players, so the 25 teams and 300 players who don't benefit would be against it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 11:36 am Post subject: Re: CBA Proposal: How to Encourage Players to Stay on Home Teams |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: |
Pros for both owners/players:
1. players: get paid fair market value which doesn't hamper building a team around them from a salary cap standpoint.
2. owners: continuity of long-term player, can still build a team around their long-time star while offering fair value. Hampers team-shopping by guys like Lebron and promotes building a culture/core in one location. |
I doubt the players union would go for that. No matter how the pie is divided, the owners pay the exact same amount in salaries -- 52% or whatever it is of total revenues.
So basically, your proposal would shift more money from the lesser players to the stars. And since there are more lesser players than stars in the union, the union likes maximum caps on the stars. |
You're right, the # of players that will be eligible for the 10, 15 (plus) salary cap discount won't be that many it seems. |
Yeah, basically you'd be asking 97% of the players to sacrifice money so Kobe, Duncan, and a few others stars could make more.
If you were, say, Matt Barnes, would you vote to take $100,000 out of your own pocket so Kobe and Duncan could make more? |
Still, appears that rank/file don't hold the sway that the top earners do in CBA negotiations. Maybe that'll change, but we're talking about reducing say a $20m cap hit to $10m, so that's $10m to spend on players (admittedly in the same BRI-based pie). The BRI argument won't change, but the issue I'm trying to address I think has a good chance in the next CBA. |
I don't think this idea would even be introduced at the CBA discussions. It would affect very few teams, and most teams would calculate they probably wouldn't benefit from it during the CBA's lifespan so they wouldn't be for it.
I mean how many teams/players do you think are really concerned that Dirk, Wade, and Tim won't be paid enough and that Kobe's salary limits the Lakers flexibility? Cause that's what you're really talking about -- it's an idea that benefits 4 or 5 teams and players, so the 25 teams and 300 players who don't benefit would be against it. |
I guess the same was said about the Designated Player and "Derrick Rose" rule players too, which has affected what, 2-3 players? But it was brought to the table and actually affected players who had not entered the league at that point. So it's really possible, and given how LBJ and co. have run the league as virtual GMs, I could see the owners proposing something to help incentivize staying on one's team.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nutella
Starting Rotation
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 597
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
This looks logical from a big market team's perspective, but I feel this slightly defeats the goal of last CBA on (like it or not) parity.
I'd probably add a small clause that each team can only have one honorary exemption on roster at once, to discourage teams preserving multiple-cores, like Spurs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nutella wrote: | This looks logical from a big market team's perspective, but I feel this slightly defeats the goal of last CBA on (like it or not) parity.
I'd probably add a small clause that each team can only have one honorary exemption on roster at once, to discourage teams preserving multiple-cores, like Spurs. |
Protects small teams' abilities to encourage players to stay after first 7 years (rookie + first post-rookie contracts). But yeah, you're right, it would require said small team to then go out and spend the $ that was saved via salary cap space. No perfect system of course.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 12:46 pm Post subject: Re: CBA Proposal: How to Encourage Players to Stay on Home Teams |
|
|
| yinoma2001 wrote: | | e as virtual GMs, I could see the owners proposing something to help incentivize staying on one's team. |
I could see the owners wanting to incentivize players to stay with their team; I just don't think they'd propose anything along the lines of what you've come up with.
The incentives, more likely, will be about giving the player a higher compensation for staying, rather than giving his team more ability to surround him with better teammates. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10964
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
2 Words: Profit Sharing;
Just give a player with 10 years uninterrupted tenure an automatic 5% stake in franchise value on the day he signs a new contract. At 15 years that stake rises to 10%. And add 1% per year for every year beyond 15. Right now Kobe would have a 14% stake in current market value. Kobe would have happily signed a vet minimum contract.
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I agree with AV. This is something that would have to originate from the owners' side, and I don't see that they would be motivated to go this route. They like the fact that there is pressure on aging stars to take pay cuts. Individual team owners might like it in a particular year, but the owners as a whole would gain nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yinoma2001 wrote: | | nutella wrote: | This looks logical from a big market team's perspective, but I feel this slightly defeats the goal of last CBA on (like it or not) parity.
I'd probably add a small clause that each team can only have one honorary exemption on roster at once, to discourage teams preserving multiple-cores, like Spurs. |
Protects small teams' abilities to encourage players to stay after first 7 years (rookie + first post-rookie contracts). But yeah, you're right, it would require said small team to then go out and spend the $ that was saved via salary cap space. No perfect system of course. |
At the same time, I don't think it is player salaries that concerns smaller market teams per se. It's avoiding luxury tax penalties which this problem would help with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Treble Clef
Franchise Player
Joined: 20 Nov 2012
Posts: 23912
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: | | nutella wrote: | This looks logical from a big market team's perspective, but I feel this slightly defeats the goal of last CBA on (like it or not) parity.
I'd probably add a small clause that each team can only have one honorary exemption on roster at once, to discourage teams preserving multiple-cores, like Spurs. |
Protects small teams' abilities to encourage players to stay after first 7 years (rookie + first post-rookie contracts). But yeah, you're right, it would require said small team to then go out and spend the $ that was saved via salary cap space. No perfect system of course. |
At the same time, I don't think it is player salaries that concerns smaller market teams per se. It's avoiding luxury tax penalties which this problem would help with. |
Which begs the question, if the idea behind this rule is to circumvent the luxury tax obligations, would this be popular with any team other than the 2-3 teams that can potentially benefit from it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
24KaratGold
Franchise Player
Joined: 13 Aug 2006
Posts: 17350
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aussiesuede wrote: | 2 Words: Profit Sharing;
Just give a player with 10 years uninterrupted tenure an automatic 5% stake in franchise value on the day he signs a new contract. At 15 years that stake rises to 10%. And add 1% per year for every year beyond 15. Right now Kobe would have a 14% stake in current market value. Kobe would have happily signed a vet minimum contract. |
You think the owners would want to give up part of their share of the team they own to a player?
_________________
Double rings > Double rainbow |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
improper
Starting Rotation
Joined: 07 Jan 2014
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 4:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Generally, I like this idea, along with the idea that you'd cap the use of it to one or two players on the team.
I have one suggestion, though. It should only be allowed to be used on players you are giving a max contract to, and by max I mean whatever that player's max is based on their years in the league. This would prevent teams from using it to game the system by having stars take a pay cut and then also making their cap hit 50%. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 4:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | I agree with AV. This is something that would have to originate from the owners' side, and I don't see that they would be motivated to go this route. They like the fact that there is pressure on aging stars to take pay cuts. Individual team owners might like it in a particular year, but the owners as a whole would gain nothing. |
The fact that you're saying the owners would not like it; AV says the players won't like it probably means this may have a chance! 
As to the owner's concerns, as AV pointed out, it would be in the context of the agreed-upon BRI levels (meaning, the pie doesn't grow bigger with this proposal, just cut differently).
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 5:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| yinoma2001 wrote: | The fact that you're saying the owners would not like it; AV says the players won't like it probably means this may have a chance!
As to the owner's concerns, as AV pointed out, it would be in the context of the agreed-upon BRI levels (meaning, the pie doesn't grow bigger with this proposal, just cut differently). |
I don't think you're getting the point. At the hypothetical bargaining table for a new CBA, who would be advocating this? Maybe an individual player like Dirk (because it would give him leverage to say no to taking a pay cut), but the rest of the players would not be motivated to help him. Maybe an individual owner who wants help keeping a player like Dirk, but the rest of the owners would not be motivated to help him. In fact, most of the owners would say that this is exactly the way that the salary cap/luxury tax is supposed to work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 5:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: | The fact that you're saying the owners would not like it; AV says the players won't like it probably means this may have a chance!
As to the owner's concerns, as AV pointed out, it would be in the context of the agreed-upon BRI levels (meaning, the pie doesn't grow bigger with this proposal, just cut differently). |
I don't think you're getting the point. At the hypothetical bargaining table for a new CBA, who would be advocating this? Maybe an individual player like Dirk (because it would give him leverage to say no to taking a pay cut), but the rest of the players would not be motivated to help him. Maybe an individual owner who wants help keeping a player like Dirk, but the rest of the owners would not be motivated to help him. In fact, most of the owners would say that this is exactly the way that the salary cap/luxury tax is supposed to work. |
Fair point. But we've seen insular groups/issues raised in other CBAs. IIRC there are about 10 current players with 10+ years on the same team (3 of them are on the Spurs, and Peter Holt has considerable sway) and about 6-7 are approaching same. Just thought it would be a way of balancing a few things out and rewarding long-time players.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: | The fact that you're saying the owners would not like it; AV says the players won't like it probably means this may have a chance!
As to the owner's concerns, as AV pointed out, it would be in the context of the agreed-upon BRI levels (meaning, the pie doesn't grow bigger with this proposal, just cut differently). |
I don't think you're getting the point. At the hypothetical bargaining table for a new CBA, who would be advocating this? Maybe an individual player like Dirk (because it would give him leverage to say no to taking a pay cut), but the rest of the players would not be motivated to help him. Maybe an individual owner who wants help keeping a player like Dirk, but the rest of the owners would not be motivated to help him. In fact, most of the owners would say that this is exactly the way that the salary cap/luxury tax is supposed to work. |
Well, wouldn't such a CBA change get owners further away from the luxury tax threshold and as a result, open up the wallet for other players? If Kobe only counted for $12M, we'd have that much more money available to bring in FAs and pay them rather than have to sign guys for the minimum.
I do think players want to have their cake and eat it too. That is, they want the maximum earning potential AND the flexibility to choose where they go. This would basically eliminate any flexibility on their part in terms of going to a different team AND making the most money while they're at it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
I understand, but there is an implicit assumption in your proposal: that someone other than the long-term players wants to reward the long-term players. Long term stability is something that fans care about -- or at least think they care about -- but players and owners (as groups) really don't care that much.
My attitude is influenced by Euro football. There is no long term stability over there. Players are endlessly looking for a higher bidder for their services, and teams make big profits by buying low and selling high. (Trades are rare, and teams usually sell player rights for cash.) Every now and then you get a guy like Steven Gerrard who plays his whole career with his hometown team, but for the most part players are looking for more money with a more famous team.
And you know what? It works just fine. Some fans whine when their favorite player bails, but I can guarantee you that Euro football fans are not less passionate about their teams and their sport than US fans. When Thierry Henry left Arsenal, for example, the fans got over it. Cristiano Ronaldo bailed on Man U (which was actually his second team) for Real Madrid, but he loves to drop hints about coming back to Man U some day. Yeah, if the check has enough zeros.
I find it refreshing. Americans like to believe all of the rot about loyalty and the like. Even now, there are a lot of people on this board who either (1) choose to forget that Kobe demanded to be traded in '07, or (2) insist on believing that he wasn't serious and that it was part of some clever plan to motivate the front office. Sure, you occasionally get a guy like Dirk or Duncan who takes a paycut to stay with a team, but the prototypical US athlete was David Cone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Telleris
Star Player
Joined: 28 May 2013
Posts: 2371
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| yinoma2001 wrote: | | dmorans1 wrote: | I like it. 
Let me tell you, Duncan's paycut to help the team "win" is straight up BS. His paycut, as well as Tony's and Manu's, is all for the benefit of the owner. All three of them could have made the maximum and they would still have the same team. Let's break it down.
Duncan - draft pick
Manu - draft pick
Tony - draft pick
Kawhi - trade for George Hill who was a draft pick
Tiago - draft pick
Danny Green - signed for less than the MLE in 2012
Boris Diaw - was picked up for the minimum after clearing waivers
Patty Mills - has been a minimum guy for three years now
Belinelli - signed for less than the tax MLE
Joseph - draft pick
Bonner - was traded for Nesterovic in 2006 |
And I think a way to cap the $$$ for owners is to only be able to designate 1-2 players in a finite period of time, or until said players retire. Like a team has 1-2 of these designations that they can use.
Everyone should be happy theoretically speaking. And it exposes those franchises that used players and made them take less $ and then with the cap space, they have no excuse to not spend lest that player bolts. |
Allow them to offer 25-50% above the max that only counts as the max for cap purposes to a designated player (who also qualifies for a no trade clause) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | I understand, but there is an implicit assumption in your proposal: that someone other than the long-term players wants to reward the long-term players. Long term stability is something that fans care about -- or at least think they care about -- but players and owners (as groups) really don't care that much.
My attitude is influenced by Euro football. There is no long term stability over there. Players are endlessly looking for a higher bidder for their services, and teams make big profits by buying low and selling high. (Trades are rare, and teams usually sell player rights for cash.) Every now and then you get a guy like Steven Gerrard who plays his whole career with his hometown team, but for the most part players are looking for more money with a more famous team.
And you know what? It works just fine. Some fans whine when their favorite player bails, but I can guarantee you that Euro football fans are not less passionate about their teams and their sport than US fans. When Thierry Henry left Arsenal, for example, the fans got over it. Cristiano Ronaldo bailed on Man U (which was actually his second team) for Real Madrid, but he loves to drop hints about coming back to Man U some day. Yeah, if the check has enough zeros.
I find it refreshing. Americans like to believe all of the rot about loyalty and the like. Even now, there are a lot of people on this board who either (1) choose to forget that Kobe demanded to be traded in '07, or (2) insist on believing that he wasn't serious and that it was part of some clever plan to motivate the front office. Sure, you occasionally get a guy like Dirk or Duncan who takes a paycut to stay with a team, but the prototypical US athlete was David Cone. |
Yeah, this thread is debating a solution to a problem that really isn't a problem to more than a small handful of people.
But I understand it: It appeals to the emotion (and in my opinion self-delusion) fans have about loyalty.
To me, the whole notion of "loyalty" is one of the biggest BSes in sports. Players are drafted onto teams, and basically given no option where they can play. They can be traded at any time. They can change jerseys and play just as hard and passionately for their new team and new fans. Fans and jerseys are interchangeable.
Occasionally, a superstar plays a long time for one team, but that to me is mostly about mutual self-interest than any real loyalty. But even with the rare superstar who ends up on one team for his whole career, it's much more common for superstars to play for two or more teams. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10964
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 24KaratGold wrote: | | Aussiesuede wrote: | 2 Words: Profit Sharing;
Just give a player with 10 years uninterrupted tenure an automatic 5% stake in franchise value on the day he signs a new contract. At 15 years that stake rises to 10%. And add 1% per year for every year beyond 15. Right now Kobe would have a 14% stake in current market value. Kobe would have happily signed a vet minimum contract. |
You think the owners would want to give up part of their share of the team they own to a player? |
Of course they would not. And for the very same reason that a player should NOT give up the max money he is due. So if owners desire players to give up revenue due them, then it's only logical that they too offer up money. If they are unwilling, then players should also be unwilling to give up a dime as well. That's what makes the one sided calls for players to give up the money they are due so laughable. BOTH parties to the equation need to be willing to give up something for the good of the team, not just the player.
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail.
Last edited by Aussiesuede on Tue Aug 05, 2014 9:59 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | I understand, but there is an implicit assumption in your proposal: that someone other than the long-term players wants to reward the long-term players. Long term stability is something that fans care about -- or at least think they care about -- but players and owners (as groups) really don't care that much.
My attitude is influenced by Euro football. There is no long term stability over there. Players are endlessly looking for a higher bidder for their services, and teams make big profits by buying low and selling high. (Trades are rare, and teams usually sell player rights for cash.) Every now and then you get a guy like Steven Gerrard who plays his whole career with his hometown team, but for the most part players are looking for more money with a more famous team.
And you know what? It works just fine. Some fans whine when their favorite player bails, but I can guarantee you that Euro football fans are not less passionate about their teams and their sport than US fans. When Thierry Henry left Arsenal, for example, the fans got over it. Cristiano Ronaldo bailed on Man U (which was actually his second team) for Real Madrid, but he loves to drop hints about coming back to Man U some day. Yeah, if the check has enough zeros.
I find it refreshing. Americans like to believe all of the rot about loyalty and the like. Even now, there are a lot of people on this board who either (1) choose to forget that Kobe demanded to be traded in '07, or (2) insist on believing that he wasn't serious and that it was part of some clever plan to motivate the front office. Sure, you occasionally get a guy like Dirk or Duncan who takes a paycut to stay with a team, but the prototypical US athlete was David Cone. |
Yeah, this thread is debating a solution to a problem that really isn't a problem to more than a small handful of people.
But I understand it: It appeals to the emotion (and in my opinion self-delusion) fans have about loyalty.
To me, the whole notion of "loyalty" is one of the biggest BSes in sports. Players are drafted onto teams, and basically given no option where they can play. They can be traded at any time. They can change jerseys and play just as hard and passionately for their new team and new fans. Fans and jerseys are interchangeable.
Occasionally, a superstar plays a long time for one team, but that to me is mostly about mutual self-interest than any real loyalty. But even with the rare superstar who ends up on one team for his whole career, it's much more common for superstars to play for two or more teams. |
I can agree with most of this. But if it's not that big of a deal which will only affect a few teams/players, why would there be opposition against it? I understand the very valid point of which entity brings this to the table, but if it was brought, would it be met with such disdain? I don't think so, particularly if in the context of the money pot being the same. It's literally a simple thing to do to reward a player being on one team and gives a team some incentive to help keep that player, notwithstanding the rookie + 1st post-rookie contract which usually keeps a player (mutually) there for 7 years.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| yinoma2001 wrote: | | I can agree with most of this. But if it's not that big of a deal which will only affect a few teams/players, why would there be opposition against it? |
All of the teams other than Dallas do not want to make it easier for the Mavs to build a contender around Dirk. All of the players other than Dirk do not want to make less money so that Dallas can pay Dirk more.
I don't have a problem with the spirit of your proposal. The question is whether there is value in the proposal that justifies creating an exception to the economic structure of the CBA. I tend to think not.
Now, if you want to talk about something that has a chance of gaining traction, you would look at the effect of state tax differentials on player movement. The Texas and Florida teams in particular have an advantage over the teams from states like California and New York. This isn't just cost of living, but instead is a factor that can negate the advantages of an incumbent team when it comes to retaining a player. This came up with Dwight Howard. I can envision the other 25 teams getting tired of being at a disadvantage to the Texas and Florida teams. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: | | I can agree with most of this. But if it's not that big of a deal which will only affect a few teams/players, why would there be opposition against it? |
All of the teams other than Dallas do not want to make it easier for the Mavs to build a contender around Dirk. All of the players other than Dirk do not want to make less money so that Dallas can pay Dirk more.
I don't have a problem with the spirit of your proposal. The question is whether there is value in the proposal that justifies creating an exception to the economic structure of the CBA. I tend to think not.
Now, if you want to talk about something that has a chance of gaining traction, you would look at the effect of state tax differentials on player movement. The Texas and Florida teams in particular have an advantage over the teams from states like California and New York. This isn't just cost of living, but instead is a factor that can negate the advantages of an incumbent team when it comes to retaining a player. This came up with Dwight Howard. I can envision the other 25 teams getting tired of being at a disadvantage to the Texas and Florida teams. |
I get it. But it's not the first time that an insular group has been able to get its way in CBA negotiations. Like many groups that exist based on a Constitution, or laws, or a CBA, there are ways to get your interests on the table. I totally hear you AH but I think given the owner's P&M re: players taking matters into their own hands as de-facto GMs, they would welcome opportunities to help keep an anchor player on their team for past the first 7 years.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| yinoma2001 wrote: |
I can agree with most of this. But if it's not that big of a deal which will only affect a few teams/players, why would there be opposition against it? |
When I said it was not a big deal, I meant the issue is of little concern to most players and teams -- the specific proposal you're raising would be detrimental to most teams and most players, so they wouldn't support it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aussiesuede wrote: | | 24KaratGold wrote: | | Aussiesuede wrote: | 2 Words: Profit Sharing;
Just give a player with 10 years uninterrupted tenure an automatic 5% stake in franchise value on the day he signs a new contract. At 15 years that stake rises to 10%. And add 1% per year for every year beyond 15. Right now Kobe would have a 14% stake in current market value. Kobe would have happily signed a vet minimum contract. |
You think the owners would want to give up part of their share of the team they own to a player? |
Of course they would not. And for the very same reason that a player should NOT give up the max money he is due. So if owners desire players to give up revenue due them, then it's only logical that they too offer up money. If they are unwilling, then players should also be unwilling to give up a dime as well. That's what makes the one sided calls for players to give up the money they are due so laughable. BOTH parties to the equation need to be willing to give up something for the good of the team, not just the player. |
I guess you don't realize it, but you're really just talking about basic cap circumvention -- where a team gives a player some compensation outside their salary. That's illegal, of course. I can't imagine why you think the NBA would suddenly declare that cap circumvention is okay if the payment is a piece of the franchise.
On top of that, the compensation you're suggestion is enormous -- you really think the Miami Heat want to give Udonis Haslem a $60 million piece of the franchise because he's been there 11 years? That's more than he's made in his entire career.
If anything, your proposal would cause more player movements, because teams would release or cut players before they could get a piece of the franchise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
